text:
Should I report my cured mild PTSD in the FAA medical certification application?
I am a combat veteran who was diagnosed with moderate Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after getting out last year. I  decided to seek treatment and, upon reevaluation, am now at a very mild rating for PTSD with no personality disorders, and no use of medications ever. I am not even eligible for disability compensation that is how NOT severe my PTSD is or ever was. I am currently in the process of trying to get my FAA Medical Certificate for a student pilot and the FAA came back wanting these extreme and expensive tests that were never conducted by my psychologist because they were deemed unnecessary. My psychologist is writing the report they requested, but I have a feeling they will dismiss it and cancel/deny my application because I only have my medical records and my psychological report and cannot afford the psychiatric evaluations and the VA cannot do them for me because they are not medically needed.
Now to my question, if they deny it, then I will reapply again, however as I am as close to 'cured' as possible when it comes to PTSD and it does not affect my reactions to stressful situations or anything that could come up in flying (I've been in a helicopter during the healing process so I know), do I just NOT put anything in the mental disorders box? And if so will they hit me back with "hey we know you applied last time with this, so you're a liar"? PTSD is a curable thing and I feel even more normal than before I even joined the military. Thanks for your time.

I'm putting this as a comment instead of an answer because my experience ended when I retired in 1999 and because my view on this matter may be controversial these days. Given those two caveats, the common wisdom back in my day was to never admit to anything when applying for a medical that would not be obvious in a very cursory medical examination. Unfortunately, as I remember, once you admit to something, you're stuck with it. Also, shop carefully for your AME. There are (or at least used to be) huge differences between AMEs insofar as their understanding of the applicant's situation.

Please keep in mind - you can get a sport pilot license with just a drivers license IF you have never failed an FAA medical. I am not sure if you can withdraw your current application or not. In general the advice is don't go take the medical unless you are sure you can pass, as you will close the door on the only other way to get to fly if you do. Where are you living/training? If you are in FL I can recommend doctors.

I realize the comment is over a year old...but is @Charlie correct? As I understand it, in order to solo...which is essential to any pilot certification...you have to pass at least a 3rd class medical. However once that certification is obtained, the sport certification can be maintained with a valid driver license. In other words, I'm pretty sure you can't start from scratch on a sport pilot cert and proceed all the way through the program without having to clear the 3rd class medical...because that's essential to solo.

@elrobis From what I’ve read there is no medical requirement if you have a current drivers license for Sport Pilot even in becoming certified as a student. Please keep in mind I am not an expert and there are amazing organizations like AOPA which we should all be members of that can help with this kind of stuff. In fact, I called the AOPA hotline for medical questions last week and the advice alone is worth the annual membership fee. Hope this helps someone!

Unfortunately, you have to report it.  It even says so right on the medical application (emphasis added by me):

18) Medical History - HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH, HAD, OR DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? Answer
  "yes" or "no" for every condition listed below (All "yes" answers
  require a comment. Click Add Comments to add or edit a comment).
...
Mental disorders of any sort: depression, anxiety, etc.
...

Based on your own admission, you had it at one point and are now cured.  This means that you have "at some point in your life" been diagnosed with it.
Unfortunately, the FAA takes a very hard line on this kind of thing and it does not surprise me in the least that they are now requiring a battery of expensive tests in order to prove that you are fit to fly.  I don't like it either, but it does keep the people out who "say" that they are cured when they aren't, either because they don't realize it or because they just want to fly anyway.
If it is denied, then you can appeal it, but I would suggest getting good professional help.  As voretaq7 mentioned, AOPA has a very good medical service that helps their members for free.  Membership is pretty inexpensive, and more than worth it just for this service, plus they have many many other benefits as well.
A couple of other questions on the site that may help you:

FAA Class 3 Medical re-examination
Can a private pilot receive recurring training while waiting for a special-issuance medical approval?

I think AOPA has moved a lot of the medical stuff into the "Pilot Protection Services" program these days, so it's a little extra on top of the basic AOPA membership (the "Plus" tier of Pilot Protection Services is $99 as of right now, and that gets you medical records review prior to submitting stuff to the FAA). It's still a pretty darn good deal, especially if you have medical stuff going on.

This is one of those cases where your instructor should have encouraged you to talk to an FAA medical certification expert before you talk to an AME (something like AOPA's "Pilot Protection Services") so they can help you get everything in order.  You've already talked to an AME, but you can still use those same resources to help you deal with their bureaucratic hurdles now that you're in the process.
The gist of the situation is is "You probably need to get a Special Issuance medical", which means you'll need to supply a bunch of supporting documentation to the FAA. AOPA's folks can work with you, your psychologist/psychiatrist, and your AME to help cut through the FAA red tape. This was talked about in the "Ask Medical Certification" section of FAA Safety Briefing in January 2012, though not in any great depth.
The good news is none of this has to really hobble your training: You're just chained to your instructor until you can browbeat the FAA into issuing you a medical (and in the worst case it sounds like that's just a matter of money to get the tests the FAA wants done - as with all things aviation, money is what makes it go).

To the second part of your question: anything you report to the FAA in your medical application is "on the record": You can't just leave the box blank on your next application, because eventually there will be a red flag (and "eventually" tends to be right away now that all the medical stuff is processed electronically).
Also note that if you are denied a medical certificate (or have one revoked) you need to jump through the hoops to get a valid medical issued in order to fly. (Unfortunately this includes Sport Pilot privileges: you cannot self-certify under the "Driver's License Medical" if you've had your most recent FAA medical application denied. Once you've got a valid medical though you can let it expire and exercise Sport Pilot privileges, and my understanding is that holds even if it was a Special Issuance medical.)

If he has been cured then no special issuance medical well be required. He just needs to prove that he has indeed been cured so that he is eligible for a standard medical. Special issuance medicals are for those special situations where people don't meet the medical standards, but the FAA determines that they may still fly with an equivalent level of safety.

@Lnafziger True - if you can demonstrate to the FAA's satisfaction that you no longer have the condition that would require special issuance you can just get a "regular" medical. I'm not sure what's involved in that regard for psychiatric issues - e.g. if you had kidney stones I know you can demonstrate that you are "stone free" with an X-Ray, presumably you'd need some kind of equivalent diagnostic result from a psychologist/psychiatrist to be "mental-illness free" (whatever that means - aren't all pilots a little crazy?)

Never lie on the medical forms.  It can only come back go bite you after you have spent thousands on your certificates.
You need the advice of a specialist in difficult aviation medical certifications.  Some may disagree, but in my mind the very best is Doctor Bruce Chien, Peoria IL.  See the following web page:  http://www.aeromedicaldoc.com/
Do exactly as he says.
You may want to browse the Medical Matters forum on the AOPA website, www.aopa.org  to get a flavor of what he does and how many he has helped.  If anyone can guide you to a successful medical certification, it is Dr. Bruce.
Recall, however, that unfortunately not everyone is eligible.  If your case is other than routine (and it sounds like yours is) DO NOT SEEK a medical certification without his assistance.  You said you are seeking a psych evaluation.  Did you know that the report must contain certain magic phrases? That certain MDs are held in higher respect by the FAA? Your case needs a strong advocate....

I am a Designated Senior AME in the Southern Region.
Obviously, I have not seen your medical records or examined you so
this is just generic advice and observations.
1) They have your records and since you applied and did not supply
the requested info, you ARE denied.
2) based on what you said, the FAA stuck you in a HIMS silo of evaluation.
This is the psych AME program which is extremely successful in drug
and alcohol addiction pilots. Success for re-entry into flying is better
than 95% for airline ATPs.  Generally, the airlines pay for this for their
employees so cost is not a factor. The HIMS IS expensive and burdensome
with lots of followup required. I have seen a few kids wanting to fly who
had been or were currently on Adderal for ADHD.  Straight to HIMS, and too
expensive to follow a dream. But then, would you really imagine an ADHD person
flying an IFR approach to minimums when their best attention span is less than
three minutes?
3) I know something about PTSD, having dealt with a number of cases from bad medical encounters, and a very close relative who was USMC infantry with a 10%
PTSD disability from the VA.  Most experts in the field and the FAA would say
there is no "cure", just good control under treatment.  They also would quote
data demonstrating an increased suicide risk in this population which is why
the FAA is cautious.
4) My best advice to you at this point is to directly call the Regional Deputy Flight Surgeon in your region.  I know several very well and they all try to be
helpful to airmen without screwing them.  See if you can get your local shrink
to reclassify your old PTSD as "Adjustment Reaction" or something else
which might be applicable. Something that doesn't trigger alarms like PTSD.
Ask the RFS, in light of your records and rediagnosis if the FAA can reclassify you and get you out of HIMS.  The course is not probable, but might be possible.
Best of Luck

You might want to look into the Sport Pilot certificate.  There are more restrictions on flying than with a Private certificate, but at least you can fly.  You do not need to get an FAA medical certificate, although there are some caveats.  Your descriptions indicates that you'd qualify.  You must have a valid U.S. driver's license.  FAA has a great brochure on the program that does not read like your typical gov't snooze-fest.  Search for "sport pilot" and you'll easily find it.  FWIW - I hold a private pilot certificate and have been most recently flying under sport pilot rules without a medical.

While the Sport Pilot certificate is a great thing it's important to note that you cannot fly as a sport pilot if you have had your most recent medical application denied, suspended, or revoked ; or if your most recent medical was a Special Issuance and the SI was subsequently withdrawn. In those cases you have to get the FAA to issue you a medical (even a Special Issuance) at least one more time before you can exercise Sport Pilot privileges.


text:
How can I take 360° panoramic pictures in an aircraft or helicopter?
I would like to receive some answer or advice on how to create 360 panorama images.
My plan is to use Cessna or Helicopter.

This is as much a photography question as an aviation one. The type of aircraft you might want depends on the type of picture you want.
If you want a picture from low altitude, showing the area nearby, a helicopter or a quadcopter (depending on local regulations) would be ideal. This would let you hover in one spot, and rotate to cover the full panorama. The movement of the aircraft could easily be compensated for in processing the photos. A quadcopter holding a position by GPS should be very stable for long enough to take the photos.
If your picture is at a higher altitude, focusing more on things further away, a small plane could work. Many general aviation aircraft can fly fairly slow. With only more distant objects as the subject, a plane in a turn at under 100 knots should be slow enough that the perspective change would be negligible.
If you could get something like a simplified version of Google's street view setup, and send it up on a quadcopter, that would probably give the absolute best result.
See also this more general question:
What is a good plane for aerial photography?

Phantom 2 Vision are VERY high-quality drones, perfectly suited for what you are looking for, and I believe they come with their own imaging equipment.

My advice would be an aircraft is a lousy tool for this - airplanes in particular.
An aircraft is always moving - airplanes have to move in order for the wings to generate lift, and even a helicopter hovering is going to be moving based on wind, thermals, and downwash from its own rotor.
Movement makes panoramic imaging difficult since a lot of the modern camera tricks we use to capture panoramic images "in camera" involve rotating the camera (think iPhone/Android "panorama" shots, or the old-school camera-on-a-stick systems used for film photography). With a fixed-wing aircraft that motion would cause misalignments that would make stitching the images together difficult (because the perspective would be changing between shots).

Difficult doesn't mean impossible though - It's been done on quadcopters (Adobe even has a tutorial where they stitch together a panorama using GoPro camera images), and you could do the same thing with a camera mounted on a full-size helicopter.
You could probably make it work for a fixed-wing aircraft too, but it would be better if you had a rotating camera mount (rotating the whole airplane would change the perspective, but flying very slow and spinning the camera reasonably fast you'll probably get usable images).

The old-school camera-onna-stick panoramas don't require any stitching. The camera rotates and exposes a length of film through a slit as it turns. The result is a continuous image. Roll film isn't divided into frames: that's an artifact of the usual photography process, which exposes a rectangle at a time.

@DavidRicherby I'm aware of how rotating panoramic cameras work (I've built quite a few of them). They require the camera to be perfectly still with the exception of its rotation, which is why that technique is generally unsuitable for use on aircraft (particularly fixed-wing aircraft where there is a constant component of forward motion). The stitching comments were aimed at "digital panoramic photography" solutions. There are other film-camera tricks that can be used on aircraft (such as "360-degree lenses"), but that kind of specialist gear would be best discussed on [photography.SE]

Fair enough. It might be worth editing to make that a little clearer, since most people probably aren't familiar with that kind of camera.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why are Russian cockpit panels painted in turquoise?
Almost all cockpit panels of Russian aircraft types are painted in turquoise, whereas elsewhere the cockpit panels usually exhibit a dark grey color.
As this "rule" seems to be quite prevalent, I am curious as to the reason/origin.
This can be seen in the cockpit of Mikoyan MiG-31:

Image Source

I just noticed that this aircraft has the white stripe down the center of the instrument panel. - I have heard that pilots are trained to "put the stick on the stripe" as part of the spin recovery procedure.

I wonder if they wore polarized visors?  The brighter the color, the more the possibility of reflected glare, but polarization tends to make reflected glare less of a problem anyway.  Polarization tends not to be compatible with LED screens but I don't see any of those here...

@quietflyer polarization is fine with LCDs as long as they're polarized the same way as the glasses. I can see my phone or car's LCD screen fine with polarized sunglasses. Maybe most avionics LCDs are polarized the opposite way?

According to Cold War Air Museum:

...the color chosen by Soviet designers helps to reduce stress and
  maintain a pilot's effectiveness on long missions.
... the scientists found out that this color keeps pilots awake and
  not getting tired by the black or grey of a cockpit panel, especially
  under terms and condition of long range flights or under heavy work
  load.

This URL contains a color guide for cockpits.

McDonnell-Douglas also used this color on the DC-9/MD-80.  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/DC-9_Cockpit.jpg

Now, I hope this will spawn the obvious opposite question.

@O.R.Mapper It did.

Any word on exactly what date this was taken up? MiG-15's in the Korean war?

@DrZ214: The interior of a Korean war era MiG-15 cockpit was mostly a sort of light battleship grey, shading a little toward sky-blue. The instrument panel was matte, almost flat, black, and the default color for the instrument faces was black with white indices and dials. - I think the MiG-17 got the modern turquoise interior.

Soviet defector and MiG-25 Pilot Viktor Belenko claimed that this was done because it was found to be more soothing and relaxing for the flight crew to operate in a blue-green painted cockpit.  This color was very common in both Russian military and civilian aircraft during the Cold War era.
I’m not sure but I suspect Boeing did the same thing when choosing the light earth color for their jetliner cockpits.

Years ago I have found explanation on one Russian aviation site. The main reasons why Russian use this shade of green is that it does not create residual picture in your eyes. The same reason why surgeons have green protective robes. You can look inside the cockpit, and swiftly look outside and you will not see residual instrument panel picture.

the real reason is tactical lighting.
not all russian aircraft have the turquoise/jade colors cockpits.
use red lights for tactical night operation, and very little light can be seen out from the cockpits.
russian helicopters and cargo that are design to operate in tactical night ops have also this feature.

So turquoise would reflect less red light than other cockpit colors ?

Sources would improve this answer. BTW the least reflective color is black, but I believe additives can be added to any paint to make it shinier, or conversely, not added.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How many VHF system can be in MEL for an A340?
How many VHF (Voice Communication) system can be in MEL for A340 aircraft?
What are the guidelines to decide that and is it different for aircraft operating under FAR 121, 125 and 135?

I'm curious why you want to know though, of course, that doesn't mean you have to say.

Recently , have started to work on business charter , where i find the different requirement in dispatching the aircraft with these in MEL in contrast with commercial airline. that brought me this question .

There are three VHF systems on A340 aircraft, as described here:

Item: VHF Systems
Number Installed: 3
Number Required for Dispatch: -
Remarks or Exceptions: Any in excess of those required by FAR may be inoperative provided it is not powered by an Essential Bus and not
  required for emergency procedures.

MMEL is required by FAA:

A minimum equipment list is required in the United States by the
  Federal Aviation Administration:

When operating any turbine-powered aircraft such as jets or turboprops.
When operating under part 135 (Commuter and on-demand operations)
When operating under part 125 (Non-airline large aircraft operations)

MEL for FAR 121 is discussed here.


text:
Can I get a pilot's license following a vehicular homicide charge?
I was wondering if a vehicular homicide charge that was not drug or alcohol related will prevent me from get a pilot's license?

charge only, or conviction?

Which country, and what type of pilot's license?

Did you kill the guy with an aircraft?

If this is an actual situation (and not just a hypothetical), you should probably consult a lawyer who specializes in aviation law.

You should also look into it for your specific state, while generally the same all states (here in the US) can define it differently which may potentially have different repercussions for you.

The AOPA's legal services might be useful in giving you some guidance here.  Disclaimer... I have never used them, but this seems to fit what the purport to do.  Maybe others can weigh in on the idea.

I'm assuming you're asking about training in the US because "vehicular homicide" is an American term, at least as far as I know. If that assumption is wrong, please update your question to include the country. You also didn't mention if you were only charged, or actually convicted.
Anyway, if we assume the US then you need TSA approval before flying solo (for citizens) or before starting flight training (for non-citizens). I have no idea how the TSA would view a vehicular homicide charge (or conviction), but obviously it's a potential issue.
But assuming you get TSA approval, you'll also need a medical certificate. Criminal charges or convictions shouldn't really matter for that, unless they involve drugs and alcohol (as you mentioned) or if the incident led to you needing long-term drug treatment, a major operation or psychological/psychiatric treatment. The FAA views psychiatric treatment in particular (including most counselling) very negatively, so if you had any that would almost certainly result in a lot of extra paperwork and potentially denial of your application.
Alternatively, you could go for a sport pilot license and fly an LSA without any medical if you have a valid driver's license. But if the FAA has ever denied a medical application from you, you can't use that option, so research and plan accordingly.
But if there are no medical issues the only other thing I can think of right now would be insurance. There's no legal requirement in the US to have any insurance in order to fly but most people who rent aircraft (including students) will have renters' insurance in case they damage the aircraft or injure someone or whatever. If your homicide charge resulted in a conviction, that could be a problem for an insurance company. Even if you don't get your own insurance, you might have to sign something for the flight school's insurers stating that you've never been convicted of a felony or motor vehicle charge (I have no idea, by the way, if vehicular homicide is a felony or not). I'm not saying that it would be impossible to get insurance, just that it might come up when/if you apply for it.
Finally, if you eventually want to get an ATP license then a felony conviction is a potential concern: see this question for more information.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or a flight instructor so don't take my word on anything important (or unimportant, for that matter). Legal issues are always tricky and for a real answer you should consult an aviation attorney or join AOPA and ask them.


text:
What to look for in a flight instructor?
I want to make the most of my time and budget. There are ton of flight instructors and the quality has to vary widely. Besides being a competent pilot, what should I look for in a CFI? What are the warning signs of a poor CFI?

You want to make sure they have good hygiene.  I had one who smelled awful.  It makes flying and ground miserable.

@SpongeBob Also dangerous. Someone might try to weigh pros and cons for a go-around. Off-center landing vs 10 more minutes of bad body odor.

This is an excellent question and at the same time, very broad. Every student and pilot can give you a ton of advice about what qualities the best CFI must have. I will list a few qualities to look for and then guide you to a few resources which can further elaborate the topic.
I presume you are going for Part 61 (14CFR61.159). I also presume that you have selected a flight school or will choose from a few around your.
Once you get to a flight school, normally you will be assigned a CFI by them. They will interview you and you should do the same.

Ask the CFI why they are teaching and what their goals are
Generally speaking, one half of CFIs are doing it for their future career goals (i.e. to get a job in an airline) and others are doing just because they earned the CFI rating and hence are earning money by teaching.
Once you start flying with a CFI, see how they respond to your mistakes
You are a student and are learning something new. There is no way that you will master everything taught just once. (Maybe you can, I'm not just that smart.) Observe how the CFI will notice your mistake, bring it your attention, rectifies it themselves or gives you instructions to do it, and most importantly, how your mistake affects their mood?
Before and after each lesson, notice how they answer your questions and explain to you what you guys will be doing and have done
Some people (like me) would ask a million questions. Often times, you will find teachers/instructors who don't like to be questioned a lot. All your questions are genuine, you just need to see how they are answered.
Ask your pilot friends to guide you, or check with other students at your flight school.
Your friends can give you a very honest feedback. You can benefit from other students too, but if a CFI works for someone else, they may not work for you. You are the one to judge and make the call.

Naturally, you cannot know about a CFI's style unless you take a few lessons with them. That will definitely cost you money. But spending a little money to learn a valuable lesson is not wasting money. It is an investment.
I am not talking about some other details as they are discussed thoroughly in the references below.

Here are some resources which have answered this same question in more detail.

Pilot Tricks
Ask A Flight Instructor
wiki How
AOPA (AOPA has an article about almost everything aviation-related)
About Money
Flying Mag

I'd also tack on that a good CFI lets you struggle.  To learn how to fly an airplane you need to fly an airplane, not have somebody else constantly riding the controls for you.  A good CFI knows the difference between real danger, and lets you struggle on the controls so that you can develop a feel for the aircraft.

I would add that a good instructor is not a micromanager, and let's you make mistakes, yet makes you land on the centerline, keep the ball centered, and altitude heading and airspeed on the money

Farhan gave a comprehensive overview. I'd just like to add, picking a suitable instructor can be a personality issue.
Have a chat with him, ask yourself:

Do you trust this person?
Do you find it comfortable to be with him (or her) in the confined space of the small airplane as you drill your way towards your license?
Are you comfortable at the way he (or she) points out your mistakes?

Some people like harsh comments, some like a gentle reminder. Perhaps an experienced instructor in the 50s make you feel confident. Perhaps a more passionate instructor in his (her) younger years makes you feel more connected. We end up being closer to some friends and colleagues the same way.
It's you who's spending a great deal of time (and money) with the instructor. Besides the objective factors Farhan has listed, don't forget to pick one that you like.

Farhan's answer is very good, the only thing I can add is the way your CFI explains you something new.
This is the moment when you can understand if (s)he knows his/her business good or not. Just ask to clarify something for the second or third time and see, if (s)he tries to explain it in different words, if (s)he can think of another example, if (s)he has a good metaphor from another area for that.
If "yes" to all the questions - then yes, (s)he is a good instructor. If no - it can mean two things:

(s)he is a good pilot and understands all this stuff, but (s)he is just not able to teach others
or
rarely, (s)he knows a lot of facts by heart but can not see the whole picture and does not have fundamental understanding

If you want to maximize your budget including saving valuable time, make sure you like him or her and their teaching style fits your learning style but more importantly if the instructor ever had a student fail a checkride. How many students has he or she recommended who have passed THE FIRST TIME.
Each checkride can cost $500 or more. That usually applies to retakes. A students performance in the checkride is a direct reflection of the instructor. Things happen, retakes or partial retakes happen. But quite frankly, CFIs who work independently often leave gaps in the students' learning. The checkride examiner shouldn't be the one to find the deficiency.
It always pays to have a good instructor, a good syllabus, and a structured environment in which to learn. One in which there are several experienced instructors who contribute to the student's success.

Selecting the CFI is in part a matter of style. Try to find someone who you are relaxed and comfortable talking with because that will aid in the learning process.
I would suggest that you avoid generalizations.  For example, I am rather long in the tooth, but I have preped almost 100 CFIs for their initial checkride, and I am pretty sharp on the regs and current practices. Also I have quite different goals than many younger CFIs looking to advance their career, and I am quite willing to terminate a lesson when the learning outcome starts to dwindle (fatigue, student had a bad day, etc.)
There is nothing wrong with trying different CFIs and if you get stuck on a concept, I would try to get someone else to explain it to you.
In the end, you are the customer, and you should go where you get the best value.


text:
Why did the Flightaware groundspeed readout suddenly spike for this flight?
My 18yr old son is currently in Barcelona - first time abroad and in a plane. Being an overprotective parent I thought I'd track his flight so I could see when he had landed safely = and save the data for him so he could see his journey.
Anyhow, I noticed weird spike in the flight graph (which I couldn't save). A sudden jump of 200mph in air speed - and equally sudden reduction - at around 15,000ft. No jump in altitude increase though. Also a rapid change in direction.
The flight was on Friday 3rd at around 7.18 am bst leaving from Bristol. Data copied below - any thoughts?
BST Latitude Longitude Course  Direction  KTS MPH feet   Rate
Fri 07:22:11 51.3043   -2.6938 254° West  306 352 10,900 2,338
Fri 07:22:37 51.2927   -2.7573 255° West  322 371 11,900 2,759
Fri 07:23:38 51.2674   -2.8943 360° North 503 579 14,900 2,804
Fri 07:24:24 51.2459   -3.0081 253° West  340 391 16,900 2,365

Welcome swansrus, may I ask where did you get this data from? I helps to know the source if we're looking for the cause of the spike.

Doesn't appear on Flightradar24...

possible duplicate of Why do aircraft on Flight Radar 24 jump around randomly sometimes?

Looking into one set of data from the the popular Flightradar24 service it is not visible.
I think I found the data you're looking at. Since the heading also suddenly changed to (exactly) 360, I'm thinking this is just an invalid data point. Notice that the receiving station jumped between these measurements and something could have happened with the processing in between.
From the same site:

Aircraft with an ADS-B transponder broadcast their identification and this three dimensional position (latitude, longitude, altitude)

This simply implies that this service tries to interpolate the speed from the time between two positions. So say that the clock at the receiving station or something is off (for instance, just an idea), it will just screw up the reading. It comes with the disclaimer:

I believe I witnessed a traffic conflict, altitude deviation, or some other anomaly. Should I report it?
Please don't. Rather, read the terms of use and understand that this data is for casual observation only and not for any operational purpose. FlightAware technology was not designed with the intent to observe safety or regulation anomalies, so please do not try to use it for that purpose.

Thanks for your replies - yes it was from flightaware that I had details makes sense now - was just curious -

@swansrus No worries, happy to help. If you like, click the tick on the left side to mark this as this as the accepted answer (just an content thing) :)


text:
Is the low air pressure on top of the wing the major contributor to lift?
I am kind of old time flyer. Started to fly with those primitive hang-glides with titanium frame and the yoke control, around 1966 and then after a few close calls and getting older I switched to small airplanes like Cessna 172 and Cherokee Warrior.
But from my decade of flying those hang-gliders I remember times when my wing fabric had collapsed because I must have been hit by a swift downdraft. I had to push it back up and hold it there a few seconds to stop stall. I needed to apply considerable upward force to push the fabric back up to airfoil shape. So I know how powerful the down-flow stream is.
If we consider the total pressure on top of the wing
 $ P_{wing} = P_{atm} - \frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{dm}{dt}\cdot v_z^2$
and vertical speed $v_z = sin(\alpha)$, so by multiplying $v_z$ by the Wing surface we get the vertical down-flow and plugging it into the above equation we get a rough estimate of lift caused by low pressure on top.

I have checked many references on how lift is created and have not found any that refer to this major component of lift which I have personally experienced. Am I missing something?
I am adding a nice sketch of me rowing a boat. Using this setting as a poor man's wind-tunnel.
If you delay lifting your row at the end of its stroke it will glide back by the force of momentum of your boat. If you keep the row steady as shown on sketch and force it to drag behind you,what happens?
It creates a small swell, with water washing the outside face of the row a bit higher, shown on the sketch on red, and on the inside face of the row it creates a vortex at front and water washes the row a bit lower than lake level, shown in green.
My question is this: after reviewing many researches by labs and NASA and many other interested parties even prestigious universities, one finds less weight given to this significant part of the dynamics of lift: low pressure on top of the wing causing air to spill down to fill in by converting part of atmospheric pressure to kinetic energy, while relieving the wing top of full force of ambient atmospheric pressure?
I did a very rough estimate assuming the 176 square feet wing of Cessna  172 made of flat balsa and came up with approximately 850 lbs at 55 kn which is the rotation speed.

I am familiar with accepted theories like Newton's change of momentum of stream of air and NACA airfoils.

Possible duplicate of How complete is our understanding of lift?

@mins how did you guess that I am referring to venturi effect? even though many planes do use it in the pitutt tubes. Neither do I mean stone through. I could google myself but I though here I could find somebody with deep understanding of flight which extends beyond what pops out of google search. I have been flying in variety of machines for 50 years. I am looking for just a bit deeper insight please!

I'm having trouble reconciling your description with your drawings, especially the top one. Why is the arrow on the bottom right showing air moving up and forward?

@TomMcW Sorry for the confusion the arrow shows the reaction of the flow seen by bottom of the wing not the flow itself. The wing is bending down the flow at an angle = approx two times angel of attack, therefor the force upward marked: resultant pressure. My emphasis in the two sketches is on the zone of low pressure on top face constantly sucking in the air from the top.

I'm trying to figure out how your explanation differs from others. Every explanation I've ever read indicate that the reduced pressure on the top side of the wing does contribute a greater portion of the aerodynamic force than the underside. I don't see a difference.

I'm also not sure if your hang glider example is relevant. What causes the canopy to collapse is loss of lift due to reduced or even negative AoA. The pressure on top of the fabric is greater than the underside therefore it is not producing lift. Pushing up on it is not going to make it start producing lift. It will help retain its shape until the AoA situation is fixed. That's what gets paragliders into trouble. The lift is what forces the canopy into it's shape. If lift is lost temporarily a quick reaction to change AoA will recover. But there are not stiff structural members to maintain

@TomMcW I totally agree with you and advocate even the importance of low pressure, not Bernoulli effect, but the drain of atmosphere pressure by kinetic energy consumption of air rushing in to fill the void! As to my hang glider it was the type with sealed plastic fabric wrapped over titanium tubing.

I see what you're saying now - that the decreased pressure comes first, thus causing the increased velocity. That does happen, but I think it's too far from the boundary layer to affect the wing. The increased velocity is from the air wanting to follow the contour of the wing thus being first accelerated upward then downward. The bulk of the lifting force on the top side occurs right along the leading edge so it isn't just the vacuum caused by the rear portion of the wing that is accelerating it. I'm no physicist, though. But Peter Kämpf, who wrote the answer below is the best source around

Oh yes. Without the low pressure the higher pressure on the bottom it won't push up on the wing, so it can't create lift.

You must have read the wrong sources. Low pressure on the upper surface of the wing is really the major source of lift. The surrounding air sucks the wing up as much as it pushes it up from below.
On a flat plate, the contribution of suction and pressure is about equal. On a wing with a thick airfoil, some additional suction is added on both sides due to the displacement effect of the wing, so the resulting negative pressure change on the upper surface becomes bigger than the positive pressure change on the bottom. At low angles of attack, you even get suction on both sides.
Your pressure calculation is maybe helpful for the mean pressure difference between both sides of the wing, but it will not give a correct value for absolute pressure. It is better to calculate lift from the momentum change imparted on the air by the wing, as shown in this answer.
Your example with the row is well chosen: The local height difference of the water to the undisturbed sea level is equivalent to the local pressure difference to the static pressure (a higher water level signifies higher pressure) and shows the approximate conditions on a section of the wing. The row is like an inclined flat plate. You can even change the angle of the row and see the additional trailing vortex as it floats away from the row.
Now for the hang gliders: They are peculiar in that the airfoil shape depends on local pressure, and early models did not use lengthwise stiffeners so the pressure over the fabric could invert when the wing caught a negative angle of attack for a moment. You are lucky that you could press the fabric up again: Several early hang glider pilots could not recover and fell to their death. This happened when designers tried to increase the aspect ratio of the initial Rogallo shape of their gliders. I only know a German word for this phenomenon: Flattersturz.

I think the English equivalent to flattersturz is "uh oh!"

Do you have a reference for the "equal contribution" of the top and bottom of a flat plate? I'm looking at things like the figure on the second page of http://s6.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/flat_plate_lift.pdf, where the suction effect looks larger to me, but I realize I can't be sure which integral is greater just by looking at the figure.

A couple of points regarding my glider: It was a delta shaped titanium tubing covered by a light sheet and kept tight in shape by thin cables. when there was not enough wind I had a friend tow me with a 200 ft clothe-lines attached to my car seat-belt permanently attached to CG of my kite with a rubber band release. My friend was responsible for safe launch by going fast so that I'd lift without being dragged on ground. Lost many courageous friends!  - Collapse of canopy happens for variety of reasons like  inversion of air current near the shear mountain cliffs which we didn't know then!!

@PeterKämpf I'm like David K. In fact, I don't have time to search for it now, but I think it was you that indicated somewhere that the suction force was greater.

@DavidK: The pressure on the lower side cannot be more than the stagnation pressure, while the suction peak on the upper surface can go all the way to vacuum. Therefore, near the leading edge suction is higher than pressure, but for most of the chord both are much the same.

@TomMcW: Just weaseled my way out of this. Yes, suction is a little stronger, but only because pressure hits the limit earlier, at least in subsonic flow.

Well, this has been informative, anyway. I used to think the suction effect was much stronger, even for a thin wing, but that appears not to be true. Perhaps I looked at thick-wing pressure distributions and assumed thin wings would be similar, not thinking of the displacement effect.

The question is: "Is the low pressure on top of the wing the major contributor of lift."
It depends how you define "the major" contributor. But the answer must be yes because low pressure on top of the wing is certainly one of the ingredients in the recipe for lift and airplane flight. So let's take a look at what's going on, and you can decide how major is major.
First - wings have no lift when they're standing still, and as the wing moves through the air - faster and faster - the recipe starts to come together. So speed is a major factor too. Speed as it flows across the top of the wing creates a cohesive flow of air which is very similar to water flowing in a river. Imagine throwing a stick into fast moving water and the stick is carried away. As the fast flowing cohesive air flows across the top of the wing, the molecules on top of the wing are caught up in the flow and they leave the spot where they were, leaving a vacuum behind. The faster the speed, the greater the flow, the greater the vacuum. So - cohesive air flow is also a major contributor.
Second we have no "lift" without a reaction from below. An upward force which is actually the force that holds the plane up into the air. Where does this lift come from? It comes from the dynamic struggle of the electron inside the atom. You see - electrons are so small that the solid skin of the wing is like a chain link fence to the electron and so the electrons inside the atoms below the wing can see (sense) the vacuum void, and they move 'en mass to fill the void - but there's a problem! The atom that hold the electron inside its belly is too big to enter the chain-link (solid) skin of the wing, so as the electron strives to fill the vacuum on top, it drags the atom into the underside skin of the wing. When the atom hits the surface of the wing, that is the moment when potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, and lift occurs. The greater the pressure differential, the harder the electrons tug on the too big atoms. So the mandate of the Universe that electron matter fills the void of nothing, is another "major contributor" to the airplane lift.
So yes - the vacuum is important, but its actually just a bait. The most important part of lift is when the energy is converted from potential to kinetic, and that is found in the internal struggle of the dynamic of the atom and electron relationship. But then again... the reaction wouldn't happen if the bait vacuum didn't exist, si I think I'll give the vacuum equal importance. It's just like the "chicken or the egg" conundrum. So, which is the most important ingredient in the recipe of airplane flight. It turns out that all the ingredients are important and work together as one. Vacuum is just one of the ingredients.

Your idea that vacuum is just one of the ingredients is great.  However, electrons move to positive charge areas, not to vacuum.  Air flows from high to low pressure, analogous in concept, but not related, to electrical charge flow.  You may wish to think of bottom lift as mass action/reaction.  Think of water skiing.  Not much lift from top there.  Now make your skis 800 times bigger and try it in air.  This is a significant portion of lift.  But if you aerodynamicly reduce drag, you can ski with a 35hp motor instead of 100hp, and yes, with 2 skis or 1 !

The real cause of lift and the logical reason that an object moves up is indeed a pressure difference. But how this pressure difference is created is one of the most misunderstood things in physics.
The short answer is that a wing produces a force in upward direction (or downward in case of negative lift). This force works against the air pressure coming from above the wing, with the result a pressure decrease on top. But on the underside this force works now with the air pressure coming from below the wing, with the result a pressure increase from below. The net force is upward.
I made this video demonstration to show how pressure difference due to flow turning is the cause of lift instead of pressure difference due to Bernoulli principle.
A longer answer is hidden in this physical explanation about the center of lift I wrote in another publication:
Much is written about the center of pressure or center of lift - which is actually the same - but few people know what it actually is in a physical sense. The center of pressure, shortened as CP or CL is an important factor in aerodynamics as its position relative to the center of gravity (CG) estimates in an important way the stability of a flying system.
To really understand what the center of pressure is, it’s important to first understand the true principle behind the generation of lift which is all about acceleration of air caused by the turning of that air. Whether a flow of air is turned down along the upper side of a wing or along the lower side, in order to turn the flow, it is required that a force is acting on it. The force that is responsible to turn air along both the upper and lower side is the viscosity of air. Compare this to a viscous fluid that sticks more to your hand then a less viscous fluid. As the air sticks to the wing surface, it is able to excert a force on the wing. This is to counteract the force that the wing acts on the airflow by turning it down. Or in another words: the well-known action=reaction principle, discribed by Newtons third law.
Center of Pressure is Action=Reaction Point
This action=reaction point is the center of lift or the center of pressure. It is called the center of lift because it is the point where the lift force acts on a lifting surface (wing) or lifting configuration (aircraft). It is called the center of pressure because this is the average point of all pressure acting on the lifting surface or lifting configuration. Realize that as the air is deflected downwards by the wing, the air exerts a force on the wing in the opposite direction which means that it adds up to the pressure on the underside of the wing with the result a bigger vector in the upward direction. But on the upper side of the airfoil now we have a smaller vector as the pressure is lowered because here is a deduction of the pressure on the wing caused by the force in the upward direction. The result is a net force upward. This vertical pressure lowering is the real lift force.
Wrong Explanation
A very common wrong explanation of the center of pressure is that it is caused by the pressure lowering due to the Bernoulli principle on top of the wing. The faster airflow over the top of the wing is indeed causing a pressure drop on this location but this is by far not comparable in magnitude to the pressure lowering caused by the flow turning as discribed above. Therefore, the faster airflow over the top of the wing is not the cause of the lift generation but the flow turning is the real cause.
A more advanced answer about the real mechanism of lift I wrote here

You've asked in another post about why this answer post got downvoted. I see that although this answer post contains a lot of interesting information, it doesn't seem to answer the question which was asked. Answer posts are generally expected to contain an answer to the question that was asked, and any relevant supporting information—and no other content. Since this post contains a lot of content, but no answer to the given question, that's probably why it received a downvote.

Partially agree. The title of the question is: Is the low air pressure on top of the wing the major contributor to lift? My answer actually explaines that this is correct and why. So it explaines the actual question but I agree that it may give too much additional information.

@TannerSwett Re-analysing, I must agree my comment gives an indirect answer on the original question, but as you said, it is still useful information that could help the  questioner / reader and it still not explains why a downvoter would not comment on the downvote. So my negative conclusion about the vote-system is still relevant. For a Google searcher, a downvote would unnecessarily indicate that the explanation may not be right in some way.


text:
How does wake turbulence affect parachutists?
If one were to parachute out of a jumbo jetliner, would wake turbulence from the plane be an issue?
A 747 for instance produces much more wake turbulence than the smaller planes usually used to drop parachutists. Would that make a difference, or does the trajectory of a parachutist stay clear of wake turbulence in any case?

Just be sure to jump behind the wings (and the engines).

Qualification: I am a master parachute rigger and I taught sport parachuting for 10 years.
The back door of a 747 is actually in a pretty good position - the tail is above the door and the fuselage is narrowing at that point so it's not a complete side exit.
A freefall jumper will drop out of the aircraft's wake in under a second so that's not really an issue. If we pick a theoretical worst-case where a jumper goes straight through a huge vortex they might get flipped over. Remember that a human does not have large surfaces like wings to interact with. Any jumper that can't recover from that won't be doing freefall jumps anyway. Seriously, this is in the Jump #1 stability lesson, and if you haven't got it sorted by jump #6 any reputable school will send you home.
Exit speed is a consideration - sport gear is meant for < 200km/h. If we are going out at 747 cruise speeds I would tighten everything right up1, wrap some tape around the riser covers2 and tuck the pilot chute handle completely into the pouch. Maybe also tack the closing flap cover down. Yes guys, it will still open if you sew it to the proper flap. If the plane is at approach speeds with flaps and gear down then you're fine - not much different than a King Air.
So in conclusion, yes, you can jump out of a 747. Rent one and you will have every jumper in the state lining up for tickets.
To reply to the comment of the pilot chute going over the tail, that happened at our place too (and to me once, but mine went under the tail). It's got nothing to do with turbulence - the pilot chute got pulled mostly out of the pouch, most likely snagging something, and the air picked it up from there. Our guy actually hit the tail. He had nasty bruises and needed a few lines changed, the pilot needed new underwear, and the Cessna needed a bunch of rivets and sheet metal work. When it happened to me I had a surprise deployment at 9,500 feet and a longer than usual ride down.
1 to the point where you will need my tools to close it.
2 it will break away after opening, and won't be more than an annoyance if it doesn't

This is similar to what I would have written if I had more time before you got to it.  Great answer!

every jumper in the state try country!

Paratroopers are sometimes dropped from large cargo carriers planes out of the backdoor (or side door) with little trouble. (right in the wake turbulence)
However by the time you open your parachute you will already be well clear of any turbulence caused by the large airplane.

And note that dropping paratroopers ranges from static line and very low altitude (like couple hundred feet) to HALO jumps from 30-40 thousand feet.

Wake turbulence is caused by an aircraft as it moves through the air, so the turbulence is in the trail of the aircraft. A parachutist isn't going to be behind the aircraft after jumping out of a jumbo jet as there's only doors on the side. Say the airplane has a rear ramp like a 727, the parachutist is very quickly going to drop below the level of any wake turbulence.
This doesn't mean jumping out of a jumbo jet is anything but extremely hazardous though, the slipstream would make any attempt foolhardy.

They used to (and maybe still do) use a 727 for skydiving during the annual World Freefall Convention here in the US.  They did a "low speed" pass near its minimum airspeed, and a "high speed" pass at 250 KIAS.  People keep coming back for it every year, so it must not be too bad!

@Lnafziger: But I suppose they jump from the rear door.

@JanHudec They do indeed, but I was simply addressing his last sentence.  :)

@Lnafziger: Yes, but that last sentence is based on the assumption that you'd have to jump from the side door of the 747 that are rather badly positioned for that purpose. So it does not apply to 727 with the tail door.

@JanHudec Ummm, I didn't take it that way since it is a stand-alone paragraph/sentence, and if that's what he meant then perhaps it can be clarified. Which is ultimately what my comment was for in the first place.  :)

Bottom line is that there is very little effect on the parachutist/skydiver.
The case where there would be the largest concern would be in the event of a static line jump (which we seldom teach civilian-wise) where the jumper's pilot chute is deployed on exiting the aircraft. However, as you can see below, gravity is pulling you down faster than you are being pulled back thus you are essentially out of the turbulence cone.
In the event of non-static line jumps, the process is just faster (because of less drag).
Also, many times an aircraft will be at a slight climb and near stall speed (but this is manly for safety not turbulence related issues).

Note that wake turbulence is stronger in slower flight.

Also, I have been looking out the window of a jump place (from the back) and have seen a pilot chute go over the tail of the airplane, so it is possible (and NOT fun).  One drop zone that I used to jump at even had it happen and tear 1/2 of the elevator off of the airplane.  It put it into quite a dive, but the pilot was able to recover and land the airplane safely (good thing that the DeHavilland Beaver has such a large tail)!

Isn't wake turbulence mainly caused by the two vortices spilling from the wing tips? To quote NASA: "When viewed from in front of an aircraft, or from behind, the circulation of vortices is outward, upward, and around the wing tip.". So for that 747 example, it would be quite a bit away from the doors.

@Lnafziger, that accident was most likely caused by an improper deployment procedure, not turbulence...

@MSalters the wake vortex does indeed form due to the difference of pressure between the top and the bottom of the wing at the tip of each wing. But each vortex grows and the turbulent area ends up being as wide as the plane.

@MatthewPeters It was indeed, I didn't mean to imply that it was caused by the wake, but was commenting on the pulling down faster comment.

@MSalters: No, it's caused by the downwash behind the wing and the downwash is strongest in the centre. The vortex lines do spill from the tips (and bend slightly inward), but the air moves in full span.

@MSalters: Though it does mean that in the centre the wake will push you down a bit and that's it. It's indeed behind the wingtips where it will tend to turn you around.


text:
Airbags in aircraft - is that just a military thing?
The Bell OH-58D (a military helicopter used by the USA) has an airbag to make life better in the event of a crash.

I had never heard of such a thing in an aircraft before and I wondered if this unique to the Bell OH-58 and, if not, whether civilian light aircraft come with such an option ?

Airbag seatbelts on planes are a "new" thing (well, since about 2001 apparently), but they're available on new-production aircraft and can be retrofitted to older General Aviation planes as well.
You can also find them on some airliners (typically in the exit rows where the next row is too far away to assume a proper brace position).
AmSafe (the folks who make a good percentage of the aviation-approved seatbelts) has a nice video (or two) on the subject of aviation airbags.

Here is a list of commercial airlines which have airbags installed.

+1, I'd also add that very few military aircraft have them as well.  Generally speaking, we're strapped in pretty well.

@Farhan Interesting list.  I just noticed that some airlines only provide airbags for first class or business class passengers.  The ethics involved are questionable, at best.


text:
How Earth's rotation affect flight times?
How much does Earth's rotation affect flight times in going East or West, and how could you calculate if zero winds?

It's really helpful. For example, if you are in a helicopter and need to travel directly west, you can just hover and let the earth move below you until it gets to the right spot.

@TylerDurden if you want to go east, though, you have to go faster than 1180 km/hr, and that's at 45 degrees latitude. So I hope you are headed west.

OP, are you asking about the effects of Time of Arrival due to time zone changes?

What do time zones have to do with the earth's rotation or wind?

It does not affect as much as one would think.
The atmosphere moves along with Earth's rotation. An airplane taking off from one place on Earth has to move through the atmosphere which is moving with Earth.
Now you may ask when does it take longer when we travel from Western Europe to Eastern USA, compared to USA to Europe? That depends on Jet Stream:

Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow air currents found in the atmosphere of ... Earth.

Many air routes take advantage of jet streams, as you can see as follows:

Pilots know about the jet streams and will try to gain benefit of them. Recently, there were some news that a flight from New York to London traveled faster than expected because it was in jet stream (details here and here).

If you want to know why Earth's atmosphere moves with it, please see this.
There is a similar question on Physics.SE.

This is a physics question, not an aviation question, and might better be posed on Physics StackExchange.
Simply put, the question has an infinite number of answers!  Let me explain.
When you are stationary in a helicopter, waiting to take off, with reference to an observer also standing next to the helicopter, your speed is 0.
But with reference to an observer in a static point in space whose frame of reference is the centre of the earth, you are already moving at about 1040MPH.  The surface of the earth is also moving at 1040MPH. (BTW, it is itself impossible to define a static point in space since all of space is moving.)
The atmosphere you are about to fly in (assuming zero wind) is also moving at the same speed.  If its speed was zero, with reference to the stationary observer in space, then the 1040MPH wind might make flying a little difficult.
You lift into the hover.  Now to both observers, you are still doing the same speed because speed is a scalar and you have added no force to change your horizontal speed. To the observer standing near the helicopter, the earth, the helicopter and the air it is flying in are all moving at 0 speed.  To the observer in space, they are all moving at 1040MPH.
You now fly West at 100MPH.  To the observer standing on the earth, your speed is now 100MPH but to the observer in space, your speed is now 940MPH.  You have slowed down!
By picking any arbitrary observer, at any point in space, and doing any speed you choose, you can see that there are an infinite number of answers to the question.
Only by asking the question with reference to a specific observer, can you answer the question.
If you ignore wind and side effects such as the Coriolis effect, the earths rotation has no effect on your journey time since you and the craft you are in must move at the same speed within the same frame of reference, relative to any given observer, together.

This is a really good point to explicit the need of frame of reference and it must be written done (so your answer is a good one). But I think you miss one point: in aviation the frame of reference is implicitly either relative to the air or relative to the earth. Assuming zero wind (as asked) means both frame of reference (airmass and earth) are equivalent.

You're right, and I did say "assuming zero wind".  If there is wind, then you simply have to add the scalar component of the wind vector relative to the observer.

my point is that in aviation the frame of reference is implicitly relative to the airmass (or reative to earth)

"Only by asking the question with reference to a specific observer, can you answer the question" TOTALLY WRONG - the flight time does not depend on the observer.

@aaa90210 Time is not fixed for all frames of reference and observers. Time dilation means that the journey time is dependent on the observer.  But that's really esoteric and at the micro scales we're taking about with aircraft flying from A to B, not relevant.  My point was simply that the Earth is a non-inertial frame and the last paragraph is the key one.

It affects flight time the same way that it affects driving time.
Cars measure their speed over the ground based on wheel speed. Airplanes can measure their speed over the ground using things like GPS. Either way, it's referenced to the ground. Technically the ground is moving, but it's not perceptible to us and we still would say zero speed means not moving over the ground.
Airplanes primarily measure their speed through the air (airspeed), and the air tends to move with the ground, so the situation is the same. If the air is not moving the same as the ground, it's called wind, which is the primary influence on flight time. Wind is influenced by the earth's rotation, but the rotation doesn't directly influence flight time.

More to the point, aircraft are starting from the moving frame of reference (when an aircraft starts its takeoff roll it's moving at the same speed as the rest of the Earth). If you made a direct vertical takeoff in a no-wind situation you would remain directly above your takeoff point until you added thrust in another direction or ran out of fuel.

@voretaq7: Except for Coriolis force, which is, however, negligible for this purpose.

@voretaq7: That only works by approximation, or above the poles or the equator, and even then you have to apply just the right amount of vertical thrust. The earth is not an inertial frame.


text:
Can a pilot use ILS when cleared for a visual approach?
When cleared for a visual approach, do airline pilots still use the localiser/glideslope or GPS or even the autopilot, or is it strictly a "visual" approach?

Tangentially related: Do non-towered airports commonly have ILS?

Yes, the localiser, ILS glideslope, and/or GPS-generated glidepath are still used as a reference during the visual approach. Sometimes the visual glideslope indicators (like VASI or PAPI) are either inoperative or not available. (Interestingly, the visual indicators and instrument-generated glidepaths are sometimes not coincident.)
Pilots sometimes choose to leave the autopilot engaged during such an approach. Some Charted Visual Flight Procedures (like the FMS Bridge Visual 28R at SFO) lend themselves to leaving the autopilot engaged for almost the entire approach. In addition, some operators may stipulate that autopilot use is mandatory.

Having retired 15 years ago at the age of 60, I'm old, outmoded, obsolete and more. However, permit me to express an opinion. Hand flying an airplane is fun, and hand flying approaches is one of the most satisfying activities I experienced. Personally I can't imagine foregoing that pleasure when I didn't have to. Also, an operator stipulating the use of autopilot is contributing to the non-currency of their pilots. I was never so good at instrument flying as I was when flying 6 to 8 legs a day in Metroliners that had no autopilots in Pacific Northwest weather.

I completely agree, @Terry. I hand fly as much as possible (my employer has no such restrictions, just "recommendations")! I just wanted to keep my opinions out of the answer. The River Visual into DCA is always a treat.

I hand flew every approach except the few cat II I had the chance to fly (a/p required for us).  I also tried to do a raw data approach once a trip (with the other guy looking at f/d guidance).  Made PCs a breeze.


text:
What job opportunities are there for low time pilots in Malaysia?
Does a new pilot who has just obtained ATPL license has job opportunities?
When I search at pilot job offered on Internet, they mostly required more than 3,500+ flying hours. What I knew about those who obtained ATPL license have flying hours aroun 1500 hours. It mostly includes aviation academy training used turboprop engine plane and they are very light weight. The jobs ads require those pilot who have flown aircraft more than 40,000 lbs.
Will a new pilot get an opportunity to get such a job? How does new pilot get their job under these kind of conditions?

Related: What can a new commercial pilot do to build flight time?

Malaysia I suspect would be very similar to where i started working a few years back in Africa. In countries (continent) like that you really need to be there if you are a low timer. Hanging around the airports and meet people who could help you with finding your first opportunity forget about sending CV's from miles away hoping for an opportunity, key here is to be pro active and make yourself known locally....


text:
How can I check pitot static leak without a test box?
More than once on the ramp, I've wished I could check an aeroplane's pitot-static system for leaks, but I didn't have the test box.  I've since seen, in the FAA's handbook for checking  homebuilts, a way of gently pressurizing a pitot system which is great - a length of medical tubing is all you need.
Does anyone know if a similarly simply elegant arrangement exists for the static system?  I've tried a largish hypodermic syringe to check if the port was blocked, but the challenges are:

getting to sit tight on the static port, and
holding suction.

All suggestions welcome.

There are lots of challenges to testing a static system the way you describe.
First, you need something to fit over the static port (not too hard if it's a single fuselage port, slightly more difficult if it's two of them, and if it's on a mast like on some Piper aircraft you just lost a lot of "seal area" and made the task very difficult).
You can get around that with test kits by taking the static line(s) off & screwing the test kit directly to the plumbing, or by using a variety of adapters that come with the kits.
Second, you need to produce a known absolute pressure in the line and hold it for a given duration to check for leaks.
That's most of what those fancy boxes do - they bring the line to a given pressure altitude, and then you watch the altimeter and/or line pressure to see if it leaks air back into the system.

All that said, if you're willing to deal with a really rough test, you can still do this with a syringe and some medical tubing. This RV-12 builder shows you how:

Attach a syringe to some surgical tubing.
Put some air-tight tape over your other static port (if applicable)
Put some modeling clay around the static port.
DON'T get it in the hole - make kind of a cup around the hole.
Put the surgical tubing into the modeling clay and press the clay tight around the tube to seal the chamber over the static port.
Pull on the syringe until you "climb" to a convenient altitude.
Hold or lock the syringe in place and watch the altimeter to see how long it takes for air to leak into the system and lower your altitude.

This is nowhere near as precise as proper calibrated test equipment, but it should help you detect a gross leak in the static system.

Note that there are different ways you can go about step 4 - like putting the clay on the tubing, centering the tubing over the static port & pressing that assembly to the fuselage. Putting the clay on the plane first and then sealing it to the tubing MIGHT make it possible to test something like the Piper mast's static port with this technique though.

When you unscrew the test kit from the plumbing and hook the plumbing back up, how do you know you didn’t induce a leak there?

The correct answer is that only approved equipment and procedures should be used. In a pressurized aircraft, a leak is rather easy to know you have. If you’re flying above cabin altitude and you have a leak inside the pressure vessel, your altimeter will read roughly cabin altitude and your respective airspeed indicator will read low.
In a smaller aircraft, there really isn’t a good way to know. Tapping into a line with a tee-fitting may prove good, but what about the disconnection of the tee fitting and the subsequent hookup of the aircraft lines? How do you “know” they are ok?
There is one trick that I have used as an A&P for hard to find leaks. The lines in most aircraft are stainless steel. Provided the respective endpoints are removed and capped (instruments, etc), I will hook dry nitrogen up to the static port and run it at 20-30 psi and listen for the hissing noises.
20-30 psi will not damage a stainless steel line or the fittings. The biggest risk is ensuring every instrument is removed as you could damage them.
Using anything other than dry nitrogen would be a mistake, though, as other gas with moisture could induce moisture into the system.

just plumb a test port into the static line ---A "T" for instance---  then block the static ports--use soft silicone tubing to fit over the T and suck gently until the altimeter reads about 2k above field elevation put tongue over tube  very scientific    now watch for drop in altitude after VVI goes to zero  no more than 100 feet in a minute is acceptable  see 4313.1B for this technique

Is there a link to this "procedure"?  Sure doesn't sound like something any manufacturer published.... suck on it, hold your tongue, hope you don't contaminate anything with saliva, etc.  Not doubting that it could be done, but is the result of this test going to stand up to FAA scrutiny?


text:
What is this weird format (R06L/CLRD62) in METAR for runway being cleared?
Yesterday, this metar was published:
METAR UUEE 292000Z 07003MPS CAVOK 17/12 Q1013 R06L/CLRD62 R06R/CLRD62 NOSIG=

Can someone explain the meaning of the R06L/CLRD62 R06R/CLRD62 bit? I suspect it means the runway has been cleared but I'm not sure about the details.
More generally, is there a definitive METAR specification that cover these edge cases?

The World Meteorological Organisation writes the code on behalf of ICAO.
The standard can be found here
You want to have a look at section 15.13.6.
So according to WMO code, R06L/CLRD62 indicates that the contamination on runway 06 Left (parallel) has ceased to exist and surface friction is 0.62 (cf table 0366)
Note that the FAA deviates from this standard, their standard can be found here

The format follows a standard, although this one is different because of the  R at the front...
The format is the "Runway State Group":
First two digits are the Runway Number, 88 means all runways, 99 means a "repetition of the last message as no new information received".
The third digit is the runway deposits, it tells you what is on the runway:

0 = Clear and dry
  1 = Damp
  2 = Wet or water patches
  3 = Rime or frost covered (depth normally less than 1mm)
  4 = Dry snow
  5 = Wet snow
  6 = Slush
  7 = Ice
  8 = compacted or rolled snow
  9 = frozen ruts or ridges
  / = type of deposit not reported (e.g. due to rwy clearance in progress)

The Fourth digit is the extent of the contamination:

1 = 10% or less
  2 = 11% to 25%
  5 = 26% to 50%
  9 = 51% to 100%
  / = not reported (e.g. due to rwy clearance in progress)

The fifth and sixth digits are the depth of deposit:

00 = less than 1mm
  01 = 1mm etc

to

90 = 90mm
  91 = not used
  92 = 10cm
  93 = 15cm
  94 = 20cm
  95 = 25cm
  96 = 30cm
  97 = 35cm
  98 = 40cm or more
  99 = Rwy(s) non-operational due to snow, slush, ice, large drifts or runway clearance, but depth not reported.
  // = depth of deposit operationally not significant or measurable.

And the seventh and eighth digits are the braking action:

28 = friction coefficient 0.28
  38 = friction coefficient 0.38

or

91 = Braking action: Poor
  92 = Braking action: Medium/Poor
  93 = Braking action: Medium
  94 = Braking action: Medium/Good
  95 = Braking action: Good
  99 = Figures unreliable (e.g. if equipment has been used which does not measure satisfactorily in slush or snow.)
  // = Braking action not reported (e.g. runway not operational; aerodrome closed; etc.)

So we can take your example: R06L/CLRD62
Means
R06L : Runway 06 Left
/ : Deposit not reported (clearance in progress)
CLRD: Contamination ceases to exist, so two groups omitted
62: Friction coefficient 0.62
Source: Skybrary.aero But I can't find one definitive source with all the possible reporting in a METAR, sadly.
It seems that this "Runway State Group" is mostly used in European countries, I can't find an example of it used in the U.S.. Here is one good reference which I think covers 99% of the METAR data for Europe.

Should be in Annex 3 of the Chicago Convention and also "Proposals for the amendment of Annexes [...] and PANS-ATM relating to the use of an enhanced global reporting format for assessing and reporting runway surface conditions" (source: ICAO).

@mins thanks for the reference, you are spot on - the format in that document matches the METAR I found. The format in this answer may be outdated.


text:
Is there any load and balance and attitude that can put positive G on one wing and negative on the other?
I got caught in gusty cross wind on the  final approach to Catalina airport last week and decided to add power and push for quick turn to come back over laterally sliding runway in a Cessna 172N. Later I was thinking back about the distribution of wind and lift pressure on the wings and could imagine a loading that would be directed upward under my left wing but changing downward on at least part of my right wing. Imagine that you're viewing the plane from behind and see it like a catamaran banked into 30' angle. And a horizontal line not necessarily passing through center crossing it as the sea water level. Is it possible and what to do to handle it?

Just imagine an aerobatic aircraft going straight up and rolling at the same trime - sure it will have positive lift on one side and negative on the other while accelerating into the roll or when stopping the rolling motion. Note that during a constant rolling motion while in a vertical climb the overall rolling moment and the overall lift both are zero.
Also, wing twist will cause very little lift or even a small downforce at the wingtip at low angle of attack. I remember that the wingtips of the SB-8 and SB-10 gliders would point downwards from the negative lift at high speed. The high aspect ratio glass fiber wing would bend a lot and indicate the local lift with a local change in curvature.
However, if you were flying an approach, the aircraft should have flown too slowly to allow for that condition, unless it also started to roll violently from the lift asymmetry. If you had to apply full aileron to counter a gust-induced rolling moment, that very aileron deflection would avoid any negative lift on one of the wingtips. This only leaves the possibility that you had negative lift for a very short moment and over a small part of the wing when the gust hit you and before you countered the rolling motion with the ailerons.

Thank you. Catalina airport is at the peak of a small island surrounded by open sea. So it can have gusts of wind changing direction fast. Cessna 172 has a large profile that could cause longitudinal torque and confused control authority. Yes what happened there is not very rare. I usually fly a bit over glide angle and then land with little flare to have a bit more room for unexpected last moment changes.


text:
How is the centre of lift estimated for airplane models before they are being mounted in a wind tunnel?
They mount the airplane models or parts of an airplane like just a wing, or a rudder in wind tunnels to test their drag and lift, stability, etc.
How do they know where to hang it from or mount it on. How do they estimate the lift center of a new design of a jetliner which has no predecessor to use as a reference.
I am guessing it is a process of trial and error. But there must be an algorithm or method to arrive from an estimate to actual lift center.

you mount it in a convenient way, and then with all the load sensors reporting, you use a spring gauge to apply known forces by hand to the object in known directions and record the load sensor outputs for each. this will tell you how to add and subtract the individual sensor outputs to yield the correct signals (pure lift, drag, pitching moment, etc.).

You don't need specific mount point to determine a force and its center. If you measure the force at two points, you can measure it's magnitude and center along the axis between those points from that. Add more points for more axis.
So the model is mounted so as to minimize disruption of the airflow by the mount, with load sensors in various points of the mount. And then the force at various airspeeds (including zero to properly measure effect of gravity to subtract) is measured and the moments calculated.

I am not sure. I know they need to know the exact center of lift  point, and it's path, following change in angle of attack or how it relates to the  changing center of gravity while the distribution of load changes! The behavior of an airfoil is most pronouncedly related to its connection to the fuselage and the relation between its center of lift and its distance from the supporting bracket or joint! Or a whole airplane if not mounted correctly will tend to pitch up/down or bank or basically have poor balance!

@kamran, the mount to determine the centre of pressure is fixed. It can't move under aerodynamic loads (more than tiny amount needed to register the loads) and the loads are measured at various fixed angles. From that the centre of pressure can be determined and then it can be mounted so it can move if needed.

The previous answer is correct. I would like to add to the answer that today's technology allows to simulate the airplane behaviour quite accurately.
Using CFD allows to simulate the behaviour of the airplane, however, the current CFD models are not perfect, they work quite well in the linear range and when flow is not attached, so you can actually estimate the values you are looking for quite accurately.
However, this technology, when applied to current designs lacks of several capabilities, the first one is to predict the drag with absolute accuracy (and not relative) and the other one is the detached region of the flow.
Finally design of airplanes is a join effort between CFD and wind tunnel when one is supporting the other. You have questioned about one of those joined areas.

I know a bit about the ways they  measure with sensors in rack of small pipe sensors. My question is not that my question is how they guess where is the aerodynamic center if lift to hang the model from that point. Otherwise all the readings will be wrong.

Using CFD you can also estimate that value


text:
How does a Secondary Surveilliance Radar send data?
When aircraft are detected by radar and their transponders 'ping' back to the radar site, this data is passed over data network cables to the air traffic controllers.
Is there typically any specialist equipment (high safety certification?) to send the data from the radar site on to the data network? Or is it something as simple as a server/PC with a network card?

I'll describe the typical Mode-S radar system based on my mostly European experience. Details will vary but the general concept applies world wide.
The radio signal received from the aircraft is digitized, CRC checked,  compared to and combined with data from earlier transmissions from the aircraft. This data is usually encoded in ASTERIX format (typically category 048PDF) and transmitted over a datalink to a surveillance data processing system (SDPS) in the ATC centre. From the SDPS the data is further distributed to various client systems, among which the air traffic controller display system is one.
The radar processing itself is partly dedicated hardware and partly COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) infrastructure. This is housed in a standard server cabinet. Network components are typically COTS high quality systems and duplicated for redundancy.
The datalink from the radar site to the ATC facilities can take many forms. Every country has its own regulator and local telecom market peculiarities, leading to a variety of implementations. Often a dedicated line will be used, usually with a backup line as well. Sometimes two telecom providers are used that have to provide fully independent data paths to the ATC centre. In a few cases radio links are used to connect surveillance systems, I know of surveillance systems (not radars) that use satellite links.
Within the ATC centre usually duplicated or triplicated networks are used for redundancy. These can be UTP or glassfibre networks. These are again based on COTS high availability/integrity components.

Very interesting insight - a related question: Do you know if there is typically a physically separate network architecture for command and control instructions to the SSR's or are the same redundant channels (for the data transmission to the SDPS) are used with virtual separation?

The control and monitoring system uses the same physical network as far as I know.

While I think that DeltaLima is the most suitable to answer that question, I will make an attempt from my experience in Hellenic airspace.
The territory you want to controll has several RADAR installations. They may be primary, secondary or both. Each of these RADARs are connected to the ACC with a leased line (leased from National Telecomunications Organization in the case of Greece). I don't know of any specific protocols used (ASTERIX maybe? And I think X.25 on the data link layer). Then radar data from each individual RADAR is processed by the RDP (RADAR Data Procesor). RDP is a computer (maybe more than one) but you can't easily call it PC. The end result (containing position, ground speed, direction and altitude and Mode A code for the case of secondary radar covered track) is sent to the controller positions using a LAN protocol.
You can say that while the concept is similar to "one PC with a network card" the reality is much more complex, and has to do with safety, redundancy and very ofter with old hardware (you can't change RADARs or any other ATM equipment every 1 or 2 years just to have the latest of them).


text:
What is the effect of moving the centre of gravity ahead or behind the aerodynamic centre for HALE UAVs?
I have heard a lot about keeping the centre of gravity (CG) behind the aerodynamic centre (AC)will give better performance than keeping CG ahead of AC (for UAVs require high performance). However, I could not find any example UAV/glider/sailplane which operates with CG behind AC. Can some one tell me whether there are any existing UAV/glider/sailplane with CG behind AC position?

Glider pilots in a competition will try to place the center of gravity at the most rearward position possible, sometimes even further back than permitted. This will make the glider statically unstable, but the performance will not be much improved - this is more psychological than real. Don't discount psychology in competitions: Pilots who feel that they fly an inferior plane will take bigger risks to get ahead and have a much higher chance of spoiling their chances by doing something stupid. Therefore, everyone tries to tweak their plane, even if the tweaking only helps to give a good feeling.
Now to the physics: If the center of gravity (CG) is right above or below the aerodynamic center (AC), the aircraft's longitudinal static stability is indifferent. Move it forward and stability increases, move it further back and the plane becomes unstable. The aerodynamic center is where the angle-of-atttack-dependent lift forces act, and in an indifferent configuration the lift coefficient on wing and tail will be equal. Since the aspect ratio of the wing is normally larger than that of the tail, an indifferent configuration will already produce slightly more induced drag for the same lift than a slightly stable configuration. Details depend on the lift loss at the center of the wing due to the fuselage and the combined vorticity of wing and tail, but as a first approximation the above is valid. Moving the CG further aft only makes matters worse.
Now it can be argued that the rear CG location helps in maneuvering the aircraft. This might even be helpful with gliders, since they need to maneuver quickly into the center of a thermal, but HALE (high altitude long endurance) UAVs fly mostly straight, so maneuvers will be few, slow and deliberate.
In essence, moving the CG back in a very stable configuration helps, but the optimum is reached already before the CG reaches the AC. Moving it back even further is detrimental to performance and runs the risk of stalling the tail first due to its high loading.
I do not know of any HALE which flies in a statically unstable configuration, and the glider pilots who do will not openly talk about it.
The only application of static instability (CG behind AC) which boosts performance can be found in supersonic aircraft. And the performance improvement is most pronounced in supersonic flight because it reduces the losses from stability of a highly stable configuration. When incorporated from the start, subsonic instability enables the aircraft to use smaller wing and tail surfaces because both will work less against each other at supersonic speed.

Dear Peter Kampf,  Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I understand that moving CG behind AC makes the UAV unstable when the horizontal tail is set with a negative AoA. I would like to know what will be the effect of CG behind AC, when the horizontal tail is set with a positive AoA.(produces positive lift)? Thank you very much.

@user3392146: The incidence (or AoA) of the horizontal tail is dictated by CG location. After all, the pitch equilibrium is maintained by adjusting the tail incidence or elevator deflection. Stability is a function of CG location relative to the neutral point (NP or aerodynamic center AC), regardless of the AoA on the tail. The AoA on the tail follows from the desire to balance all pitching moments.

Dear Peter Kampf,  Thank you very much for your reply. This clarifies my doubt.

Decreased static margin does help with trim drag, not just maneuverability: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/65298/why-does-instability-in-pitch-lower-trim-drag-for-an-aircraft-with-a-tail. Additionally, to not confuse folks, it may be better to change AC to NP (even though NP is technically AC for all the longitudinal surfaces).

@Jimmy: Yes, decreased static margin. But not a negative static margin - this will drive trim drag up again. As explained above.


text:
What is the diameter of the nozzle of Trent 1000?
I am researching how much force is needed to divert the thrust of a Boeing 787 on its service ceiling of 13,100 meters and at a cruising speed of 913 km/h (data found on Wikipedia).
As I would like to fit a diverter to it, what is the diameter of the nozzle of Trent 1000 engine?

What is the purpose of the exercise? There are no obvious reasons why anyone would want to divert thrust of an airliner at cruise - most airliners have a rather narrow flight envelope at full cruise, diverting thrust would likely produce a stall.

"I would like to fit a diverter to it" - do not perform such a major modification to a plane without a license and without checking with the aircraft manufacturer first.

It is mentioned here that the fan diameter is about 111-112 inches. So the nozzle must be smaller than that as the engine assembly narrows at its rear end.
This PDF (p.5) shows a diagram of the exhaust nozzle of RR Trent 1000 measuring the diameter as 63 inches. This is the only reference I could find.


text:
How much pressure does the compressor of an engine of B787 exert on air?
I have been intrigued by this new airliner, especially about the engine. Can anyone tell me how much pressure is the compressor given by the Boeing 787 and how it can be calculated?

Wikipedia will tell you that two engines are offered for the 787, namely the General Electric GEnx and the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000. Their overall compression ratios are given as 52:1 for the Trent 1000 and 41:1 for the GEnx.
Note, however, that this just one point which will change over the whole operating envelope. In case of the Trent 1000, the point is given as "top of climb", whereas the number for the GEnx is given without context. At high speed, the intake will already raise the pressure at the compressor entry by approximately 20%.
If we now assume that ambient pressure at the (not specified) top-of-climb altitude is a quarter of sea level pressure and add the intake pressure increase, the total pressure of the air inside the engine at the compressor exit of the Trent 1000 is 1,580,000 Pascal or 15.6 times sea level pressure.
In the static case (at rest, on the ground), the engine needs to actively suck in air, so the pressure at the compressor entry is lower than ambient (approximately 88% of ambient pressure). If we now assume that the compression ratio is around 45, the absolute pressure at the compressor exit would be 4,012,500 Pascal or 40 times sea level pressure.

Could you please tell me how did you calculate it?

@MaxNing: All numbers are from Wikipedia - just follow the links. The 20% pressure increase can be calculated with Bernoulli's law if you use Mach 0.8 as the free stream speed and Mach 0.5 as the speed at the compressor entry. Then the total pressure is ambient (0.25 * sea level) pressure * 1.2 * 52 (the compressor pressure ratio given in Wikipedia).


text:
How do pilots respond to wind shear?
I am aware that wind shear is the geostrophic wind between two pressure levels and am also aware of the catastrophic effect microbursts can have.
If informed, can the crew avoid wind shear? And if not, how do they deal with it?

When an aircraft experiences changing winds as it climbs or descends, this is technically "windshear" and it can have consequences (changes in airspeed and turbulence), but the much more dangerous phenomena is the microburst, and discussions of windshear avoidance and recovery are mostly concerned with that.
There are some good tools available for avoidance: major airports typically have Doppler radars that are designed specifically to detect microbursts and significant windshear events, and tower controllers broadcast those warnings.  Airliners and other aircraft with modern radar systems have similar capabilities, looking ahead into their flightpath for the next few miles.
Without those capabilities, windshear detection was essentially accomplished by comparing groundspeed (from an INS or GPS) with indicated airspeed, and noting any changes in that relationship.  So if your GS was 120 and your IAS was 100 (the difference due to combined effects of the wind plus the delta between True and Indicated Airspeed), then suddenly you had 130 knots GS and 95 knots IAS, you've suddenly picked up some tailwind, and if that trend continues, the loss in indicated airspeed could become catastrophic, and so an escape is necessary.
On a more basic level, some cues are typically published that may indicate windshear on approach:

± 15 knots indicated airspeed

± 500 fpm vertical speed

± 5 degrees pitch attitude

1 dot displacement from the glideslope

unusual thrust lever position for a significant period of time
(Source)

When you receive a warning from Tower or your onboard systems, aircraft that haven't started taking off (or are very early in the takeoff roll) stay on the ground, and aircraft on approach will discontinue the approach (go around).  Since the effects of a microburst are much more pronounced close to the ground, the difference between encountering the microburst at 3000' AGL instead of 500' AGL may be the difference between a bumpy ride instead of a truly dangerous event.  Also, if the microburst can be localized, either from radar or visually by observing virga or a storm cell, then turning away from it is often appropriate.
What is also practiced (in the simulator!) is what is referred to as a windshear escape maneuver, which is the aircraft manufacturer's (and possibly, operator's) best guidance for your best chance of surviving a windshear encounter.  This would typically involve steps like advancing the power to the maximum available, retracting speedbrakes (if extended) to reduce drag, rolling wings level, and climbing as quickly as possible.  At least in Boeing aircraft, it is not advised to change the flap configuration because doing so would increase your stall speed, and it's also not advised to retract the landing gear, because even though this would reduce the drag, it would also make any contact with the ground far more damaging.  Each aircraft has its own procedure, but that's a general case.
A couple of links:

Excellent discussion from Airbus of windshear & dealing with it
FAA Discussion of Microbursts

I'm curious, does a "wind shear" AIRMET indicate the possibility/probability of microbursts?  Like you said, any change in wind is technically "wind shear", but I'm wondering if there are any actual warnings for it except in the case of microburst activity.

To add to your excellent answer, at least from a historical standpoint, in the 1990s in 747-100 and -200 simulator work, we were taught to raise the nose until we got the stick shaker and then fly out of the condition with the stick shaker. I have no idea whether they still teach it that way.

@Terry, the line in our book is to "respect the stick shaker" -- it's not something to be avoided at all costs, but also not something we're trying to stay in.  Our Flight Directors have windshear escape guidance with TOGA, which will try to keep us right on the optimal AOA, which may be a step up from what the 747-100 and -200's had.  In the sim, you can get a couple moments of the stick shaker during an escape and that's considered normal.  (Stick shaker = approach to stall, not yet IN a stall, for those not familiar.) Thankfully haven't gotten to see this in the actual airplane so far!

@RalphJ It's a giant step up from what we had. Our flight directors had no such capability. Like you, I never experienced in the airplane windshear of the severity that required such a maneuver.